Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!pete From: pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Hyper Functionality [was Re: Amiga Conversion...] Message-ID: <1991Apr26.073554.10580@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 26 Apr 91 07:35:54 GMT References: <1991Apr22.071413.22219@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 79 In (23 Apr), Mike (My Watch Has Windows (mwm@pa.dec.com) writes: [... > What? You typed it in - and that's what it said. Well no, I DIDN'T type it in -- that was the point... I just took Dave's unposted text and put it out via my account. (:-)) Neverrr Mindddd.....] > > Depends on how fast you want things. You can either pass contiguous > chunks of memory around (Rexx strings don't have to be text), or ASCII > strings that contain the pointer, or the raw pointer. I've done all of > these with C structs in ARexx, and they all work fine. Now, you have > to have a server that _expects_ those, but that's going to be a > problem no matter what protocol you chose. Yes, I know you CAN handle arbitrary data with ARexx -- I just object to that paractice strenuously! Here you have a language that's supposed to be convenient for Joe User to learn to customize, and then you go and throw machine addresses and things at him... Furthermore there is no firm binding between a data-identifying tag, the data, and the operations that may be performed on it. OK, ARexx messages have a standard structure: 15 slots --- but that's IT! No standard for knowing the MEANING of data in those slots. > Yup - you get that with Rexx Function messages: it hands you a pointer > to the function names, and pointers to the other arguments. You loop > over the arguments doing what you will with the pointers, including > the one-char switch hack above. ^^^^ Yup -- that's exactly my point... (:-)) > I don't think you've listed any such applications. At least, you > haven't listed any that can't be done with the RexxMsg protocol. Well, I thought (and still think) I had. When someone writes a MIDI package in ARexx that can chain multiple modules and run at adequate speed, prehaps I'll change my mind. In any event, Kent's eloquent description of his system surely settles the point. > Like you, I'm not trying to put down ppIPC. I'm trying to find out why > we should abandon a standard that - while not as flexible as ppIPC - > appears capable of doing the job. > [That's a dangerous tack, Mike... I mean, why should we abandon MS/DOS for MultiTasking, anyhow...(:-)(:-)] I'm not in the least advocating ABANDONING ARexx, though. It has opened up a lot of possibilities on the Amiga that didn't really exist before. To me, it's main strength is as a scripting language that's both totally flexible and adapted to multitasking -- something that only un*x otherwise has, and that not in nearly as user-accessible a form. It is NOT strong in either speed or handling complex data structures or flow networks, and this is where ppIPC fits. + + + + + I had a very frustrating and worrying -- though at the same time very entertaining -- experience tonight... [Hunh?? (:-))] I heard Bill Gates talk at BMUG (the Mac group, for those not aware). He spent a lot of time detailing his vision of the future (and Apple's -- with System 7.0) and, folks, it's awfully similar to what I and a few others have been hammering on for the last three years or so. He talked about modular smaller applications passing data between each other automatically on demand, self-identifying data objects that an application would know what to do with, and so on. The small difference being that on the Mac it is here NOW! (or at least when 7.0 arrives in May). (Their term is Interapplication Communication.) THEY have had to wait for a multitasking OS before they could think of such things [and of course System 7.0 comes on between 8 and 13 floppies...] but I'm very much afraid that the big boys may now leave C=A standing in the dust. WE've had multitasking since day 1, and we've just sat on our butts! (As an aside, I wonder if the present state of BADGE is another symptom of the state of affairs? Two years ago the room would be packed with argumentative idea-filled hackers. Now we're lucky if ten people show... (:-() My respect for Microsoft product may be pretty low, but my impression of Gates is that he still has dreams. Where are the dreamers (at least in a position to really do something about it) on our side of the fence? -- Pete --